Trayvon Martin Case

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

^
In post 444 of this thread, YOU made the claim that ethical decisions "can very easily be made" into mathematical equations. So that answers your question of who made that claim.

<SNIP>
__________________________________________________ _______
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.

They can very easily be made so.
__________________________________________________ _______

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<SNIP>
__________________________________________________ _______
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.

They can very easily be made so.
__________________________________________________ _______

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.

Actually ethics were mentioned in several posts, including by you in at least post 444.

And talking about ethics is hardly "derailing" a discussion about how the legal system should work. Ethical principles supply foundational notions of law and justice. In fact, we can't even define the word "justice" without availing ourselves of ethical principles. So, for example, definition #1 of "justice" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "The quality of being (morally) just or righteous; the principle of just dealing; the exhibition of this quality or principle in action; just conduct; integrity, rectitude. (One of the four cardinal virtues.)."

Therefore, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you are also involved in ethics. A discussion of ethics goes right to the heart of your claims, whether you like it or not.

But you still haven't responded to my question.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Actually ethics were.......

<SNIP>

Don't care. I'm taking about taking (hypothetically) the human error out of the judicial system. Replace judges and juries with a computerized adjudication system (simplistically speaking).

We already have laws in place that would need to be coded in conjunction with the penalties.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<SNIP>

Don't care. I'm taking about taking (hypothetically) the human error out of the judicial system. Replace judges and juries with a computerized adjudication system (simplistically speaking).

We already have laws in place that would need to be coded in conjunction with the penalties.

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Hence, a computer program cannot currently adjudicate.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Apostasy!!! Heresy!!! How dare you throw logic in the face of science. The Algorithm will save us from ourselves and only through the Algorithm can perfection be achieved.

(simplistically speaking that is).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Yes.

Prove this affirmative statement. You may have faith that your opinion is true but you have yet to offer an objective, extrinsically verifiable methodology demonstrating that all human statutes, regulations, contractual agreements and precedential based common law can be converted to formulas applicable to any and all factual situations that may arise. Lacking such proof, all you have is faith.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It wasn't a part of my original point, feel free to try to continue to force it though.

Your original point was:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.

Followed shortly thereafter by:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Emotion has no place in law.

After that, you stated your intent was:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I am trying to create an infallible system.

Thus, as to your original point, a “safer world” is achievable through the “infallible [judicial] system” that lacks bias and emotion. Obviously, to be infallible, the achievable computerized judicial system would necessarily render a correct result in every matter subject to that system.

To render correct results in the determination of crimes & penalties (criminal law), settlement of disputed agreements between parties (contract law), and the determination of whether a party has wronged another party (tort law), the infallible judicial system must have the ability to incorporate the concept of justice into its analysis of the specific facts (including the parties’ states of mind at various point of the relevant timeline), common law, statutes, contracts and/or regulations at issue. Failure to incorporate the necessary element of justice into such a judicial system, ipso facto renders the system inherently fallible.

As Lotus has demonstrated, justice, by definition, includes an ethical component i.e. an ability to factor into any final determination the concept of "just results". As articulated by Monksdown, ethics contains a variable not achievable by computers until the singularity has occurred. If you concede this, then you must also concede the falsity of your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing”.

If you dispute Monksdown statement, the burden is upon you to prove that “ethics can be defined by a constant”. Otherwise, your belief that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing” is merely an unprovable article of faith you hold dear and that is unsupported by any extrinsic, verifiable proof.

A consideration of ethics is essential to your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system”. The pages of twists, turns and digressions in this matter are the direct result of your inability to admit the inherent logical error of this original statement and, alternatively, your failure to offer objective, extrinsically verifiable prove of its truth.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Yes, but you can probably stare at your belly button and be enthralled judging by your posts.

While my belly button is enthralling, what I find so deeply humorous is the smugness and intensity with which you – oh most vicious critic of those who have faith in the uprovable - defend an unprovable assertion in which you appear to have a deep and abiding faith. Truly, you are worthy of the most vicious mocking.

Preach on brother, your faith will see you through!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Prove this affirmative statement. You may have faith

Faith? No, I believe based on what I have studied and where 'things' are heading?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

including the parties’ states of mind at various point of the relevant timeline

Did I mention that I'm getting rid of insanity plea?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As Lotus has demonstrated, justice, by definition, includes an ethical component i.e. an ability to factor into any final determination the concept of "just results".

I've already said we have 'ethics' in place.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As articulated by Monksdown, ethics contains a variable not achievable by computers until the singularity has occurred.

Monksdown stated it, he didn't prove it.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If you concede this, then you must also concede the falsity of your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing”.

No, I don't concede the point. It's just the best current hope hypothesized by people in this field.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If you dispute Monksdown statement, the burden is upon you to prove that “ethics can be defined by a constant”. Otherwise, your belief that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing” is merely an unprovable article of faith you hold dear and that is unsupported by any extrinsic, verifiable proof.

I'm working on it........

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A consideration of ethics is essential to your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system”

No. Still no. Nothing to do with the statement as we already have ethics in place.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The pages of twists, turns and digressions

I have not twisted nor turned. What an odd thing to say.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

.... in this matter are the direct result of your inability to admit the inherent logical error of this original statement and, alternatively, your failure to offer objective, extrinsically verifiable prove of its truth.

No, as I have already stated numerous times WE HAVE ETHICS IN PLACE NOW. Bringing up ethics is a weak attempt at derailing the conversation.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While my belly button is enthralling, what I find so deeply humorous is the smugness and intensity with which you – oh most vicious critic of those who have faith in the uprovable - defend an unprovable assertion in which you appear to have a deep and abiding faith. Truly, you are worthy of the most vicious mocking.

Oh, that's what this is really about? Please continue mocking me, I'll still be amused by your faith.

Preach on brother, your faith will see you through![/QUOTE]

I am not preaching, I leave that to your kind. Don't forget to pray tonight.......

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.



Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

I could care less, I'm too busy trying to reprogram an old Commodore 64 to execute mice.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?

Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?

Yes.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??

It wasn't a part of my original point (which was this: It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.), feel free to try to continue to force it though.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.

Yes, but you can probably stare at your belly button and be enthralled judging by your posts.